Toxicological evaluation of nail polish waste discarded in the environment

  • Israel Felzenszwalb
  • Andreia da Silva Fernandes
  • Lara Barroso Brito
  • Gisele Augusto Rodrigues Oliveira
  • Paula Aquino Soeiro Silva
  • Maria Elena Arcanjo
  • Monica Regina da Costa Marques
  • Taynah Vicari
  • Daniela Morais Leme
  • Marta Margarete Cestari
  • Elisa Raquel Anastacio Ferraz
Global toxicity assessment: chemicals, environmental samples, and analytical methods
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

Nail polish has been widely used around the world. However, the hazards of nail polishes discarded in the environment are still poorly investigated. Thus, the toxicogenetic effects of solubilized (SE) and leached (LE) extracts from nail polishes were investigated, simulating their disposal on water and landfill, respectively, and identifying their physicochemical properties and chemical constituents. Organic compounds and metals were detected in both extracts. SE and LE only induced mutagenic effects in TA98 Salmonella strain in the presence and absence of exogenous metabolic activation. Although both extracts did not significantly increase the frequency of micronucleated HepG2 cells, the cell viability was affected by 24-h exposure. No DNA damage was observed in gonad fish cells (RTG-2) exposed to both extracts; however, the highest SE and LE concentrations induced significant lethal and sublethal effects on zebrafish early-life stages during 96-h exposure. Based on our findings, it can be concluded that if nail polishes enter aquatic systems, it may cause negative impacts to the environment.

Keywords

Nail polishes waste Environment Cytotoxicity Genotoxicity Mutagenicity Ecotoxicity Embryotoxicity Leached extract Solubilized extract 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are also grateful to the Multi-User Confocal Microscopy Center of Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), for the use of the equipment acquired with resources from Pro-Equipment (CAPES) and Pro-Infra (FINEP).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American Public Health Association (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environmental Federation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bali JC, Young WC, Wallington TJ, Japar SM (1992) Mutagenic properties of a series of alkyl hydroperoxides. Environ Sci 26:397–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BAPHIPC—Brazilian Association of the Personal Hygiene Industry, Perfumery, and Cosmetics (2012) Available on https://abihpec.org.br/comunicado/jornal-da-cultura-fala-sobre-mercado-de-esmaltes/ accessed on 26 september 2017
  4. Bernstein L, Kaldor J, McCann J, Pike MC (1982) An empirical approach to the statistical analysis of mutagenesis data from Salmonella test. Mutat Res 97:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bocca B, Pino A, Alimonti A, Forte G (2014) Toxic metals contained in cosmetics: a status report. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 68:447–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bols NC, Dayeh VR, Lee LEJ, Schirmer K (2005) Use of fish cell lines in the toxicology and ecotoxicology of fish. Piscine cell lines in environmental toxicology—chapter 2. Biochem Mol Biol Fish 6:43–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brazil, Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, ANVISA) enacted Collegiate Board Resolution—RDC (2012) number 44, 9/08/2012 (accessed 2110.17)Google Scholar
  8. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards, NBR 10005 (2004) Procedure for obtention of leached extract of solid wastes. http://wp.ufpel.edu.br/residuos/files/2014/04/ABNT-NBR-10005-Lixiviacao-de-Residuos.pdf, (accessed 10.03.16)
  9. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards, NBR 10006 (2004) Procedure for obtention of solubilized extraction of solid wastes. http://www.ecosystem.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/NBR-10006.pdf, (accessed 10.03.16)
  10. Castaño A, Bols N, Braunbeck T, Dierickx P, Halder M, Isomaa B, Kawahara K, Lee LE, Mothersill C, Pärt P, Repetto G, Sintes JR, Rufli H, Smith R, Wood C, Segner H (2003) The use of fish cells in ecotoxicology. ATLA 31:317–351Google Scholar
  11. De Flora S, Zanacchi P, Camoirano A, Bennicelli C, Badolati GS (1984) Genotoxic activity and potency of 135 compounds in the Ames reversion test and in a bacterial DNA-repair test. Mutat Res 133:161–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doepker CL, Dumont KW, O’Donoghue J, English JC (2000) Lack of induction of micronuclei in human peripheral blood lymphocytes treated with hydroquinone. Mutagenesis 15:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Du M, Zhang D, Yan C, Zhang X (2012) Developmental toxicity evaluation of three hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers on zebrafish embryos. Aquat Toxicol 112-113:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellingson PC, Smith ED (2000) Long wear nail polish having adhesion, toughness, and hardness. United States Patent. Patent Number: 6,136,300. Date of patent: Oct 24, 2000. Available on https://www.google.com/patents/US6136300 accessed on 06 september 2017
  15. EPA (2017) United State Environmental Protection Agency. Solid waste. Household hazardous waste. Available on https://www3.epa.gov/region9/waste/solid/house.html accessed on 26 september2017
  16. EU, Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending for the sixth time Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1993) Official Journal L 151, 23/06/1993 p.32Google Scholar
  17. EU, European Union (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal L342, 22/12/2009, p. 59Google Scholar
  18. Fenech M (2000) The in vitro micronucleus technique. Mutat Res 455:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gatica-Ortega ME, Pastor-Nieto MA, Mercader-García P, Silvestre-Salvador JF (2017) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in long-lasting nail polish—are we facing a new epidemic in the beauty industry? Contact Derm 77:360–366.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grosser Z, Davidowski L, Thompson L (2011) The determination of metals in cosmetics. PerkinElmer, Inc. Application Note, ICP-Mass Spectrometry, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  21. International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC (2017) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Available on http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_classif.php Acessed on 02 october 2017
  22. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 16240, ISO 16240 (2005) Water quality—determination of the genotoxicity of water and waste water—Salmonella/microsome test (Ames test). https://dgn.isolutions.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:16240:ed-1:v1:en, (accessed 10.03.16)
  23. Kimmel CB, Ballard WW, Kimmel SR, Ullmann B, Schilling TF (1995) Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev Dyn 203:253–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirsch-Volders M, Sofuni T, Aardema M, Albertini S, Eastmond D, Fenech M, Ishidate Jr M, Kirchner S, Lorge E, Morita T, Norppa H, Surrallés J, Vanhauwaert A, Wakata A (2003) Report from the in vitro micronucleus assay working group. Mutat Res 540:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kopelovich L, Perez AL, Jacobs N, Mendelsohn E, Keenan JJ (2015) Screening-level human health risk assessment of toluene and dibutyl phthalate in nail lacquers. Food Chem Toxicol 81:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumaravel TS, Vilhar B, Faux SP, Jha AN (2009) Comet assay measurements: a perspective. Cell Biol Toxicol 25:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lammer E, Carr GJ, Wendler K, Rawlings JM, Belanger SE, Braunbeck T (2009) Is the fish embryo toxicity test (FET) with the zebrafish (Danio rerio) a potential alternative for the fish acute toxicity test? Comp Biochem Physiol C 149:196–209Google Scholar
  28. Leme DM, de Oliveira GAR, Meireles G, dos Santos TC, Zanoni MVB, de Oliveira DP (2014) Genotoxicological assessment of two reactive dyes extracted from cotton fibres using artificial sweat. Toxicol in Vitro 28:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lillicrap A, Belanger S, Burden N, Pasquier DD, Embry MR, Halder M, Lampi M, Lee L, Norberg-King T, Rattner BA, Schirmer K, Thomas P (2016) Alternative approaches to vertebrate ecotoxicity tests in the 21st century: a review of developments over the last 2 decades and current status. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:2637–2646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorge E, Hayashi M, Kirkland D (2008) Comparison of different methods for an accurate assessment of cytotoxicity in the in vitro micronucleus test. I Theoretical aspects. Mutat Res 655:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maron DM, Ames BN (1983) Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 113:173–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mendelsohn E, Hagopian A, Hoffman K, Butt CM, Lorenzo A, Congleton J, Webster TF, Stapleton HM (2016) Nail polish as a source of exposure to triphenyl phosphate. Environ Int 86:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E (2000) The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res 455:29–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munari M, Sturve J, Frenzilli G, Sanders MB, Brunelli A, Marcomini A, Nigro M, Lyons BP (2014) Genotoxic effects of CdS quantum dots and Ag2S nanoparticles in fish cell lines (RTG-2). Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 775–776:89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nehls S, Segner H (2001) Detection of DNA damage in two cell lines from rainbow trout, RTG-2 and RTL-W1, using the comet assay. Environ Toxicol 16:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohe T, Watanabe TK, Wakabayashi K (2004) Mutagens in surface waters: a review. Mutat Res 567:109–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD (1997) Test no. 471: bacterial reverse mutation test. OECD Publishing, Paris. (Accessed September, p 2017Google Scholar
  38. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD (2013) Test no. 236: fish embryo acute toxicity (FET) test. OECD Publishing, Paris. (Accessed Setember, p 2017Google Scholar
  39. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD (2014) Test no. 487: in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. OECD Publishing, Paris. (Accessed September, p 2017Google Scholar
  40. Papis E, Davies SJ, Jha NA (2011) Relative sensitivity of fish and mammalian cells to the antibiotic, trimethoprim: cytotoxic and genotoxic responses as determined by neutral red retention, comet and micronucleus assays. Ecotoxicology 20:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pichardo S, Jos A, Zurita JL, Salguero M, Camean AM, Repetto G (2005) The use of the fish cell lines RTG-2 and PLHC-1 to compare the toxic effects produced by microcystins LR and RR. Toxicol in Vitro 19:865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poynton HC, Wintz H, Vulpe CD (2008) Progress in ecotoxicogenomics for environmental monitoring, mode of action, and toxicant identification. Adv Exp Biol 2:21–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raisuddin S, Jha AN (2004) Relative sensitivity of fish and mammalian cells to sodium arsenate and arsenite as determined by alkaline single-cell gel electrophoresis and cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 44:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reinardy HC, Syrett JR, Jeffree RA, Henry TB, Jha AN (2013) Cobalt-induced genotoxicity in male zebrafish (Danio rerio), with implications for reproduction and expression of DNA repair genes. Aquat Toxicol 126:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SCCS, Scientific Committee on Consumers Safety (n.d.) Addendum to the SCCS’s notes of guidance (NoG) for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation, 8th revision. SCCS/1501/12Google Scholar
  46. Scholz S, Fischer S, Gündel U, Küster E, Luckenbach T, Voelker D (2008) The zebrafish embryo model in environmental risk assessment—applications beyond acute toxicity testing. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Statista(2017) The Statistics Portal. Usage of nail polish and nail care products in the U.S. 2016. Availabe on https://www.statista.com/statistics/276463/us-households-usage-of-nail-polish-and-nail-care-products/ accessed on 26 September 2017
  48. Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y, Rojas E, Ryu J, Sasaki YF (2000) Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:206–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang JJ, Sanderson BJS, Wang H (2007) Cyto- and genotoxicity of ultrafine TiO2 particles in cultured human lymphoblastoid cells. Mutat Res 628:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wong PK (1988) Mutagenicity of heavy metals. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 40:597–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wu L, Jiang Y, Zhang L, Chen L, Zhang H (2014) Toxicity of urban highway runoff in Shanghai to zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos and luminous bacteria (Vibrio qinghaiensis.Q67). Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:2663–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Israel Felzenszwalb
    • 1
  • Andreia da Silva Fernandes
    • 1
  • Lara Barroso Brito
    • 2
  • Gisele Augusto Rodrigues Oliveira
    • 2
  • Paula Aquino Soeiro Silva
    • 3
  • Maria Elena Arcanjo
    • 4
  • Monica Regina da Costa Marques
    • 4
  • Taynah Vicari
    • 5
  • Daniela Morais Leme
    • 5
  • Marta Margarete Cestari
    • 5
  • Elisa Raquel Anastacio Ferraz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biophysics and BiometryRio de Janeiro State UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Faculty of PharmacyFederal University of Goiás (UFG)GoiâniaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Administration, Pharmacy CollegeFluminense Federal UniversityNiteróiBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Organic ChemistryRio de Janeiro State UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil
  5. 5.Department of GeneticsFederal University of Paraná (UFPR)CuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations